stampy wrote:daysofourlives wrote:FFS, New Zealand were never going to bowl India out in a day on that wicket, I think McCollum summed it up perfectly, after all he batted for about a day and half more on it than any of you having a go at him for batting on.
Pretty sure the New Zealand crowd were entertained and got their money's worth.
another expert comment after the event, ever heard the saying "cricket is a funny game"? any idea what that means? i am obviously banging my head against a brick wall on this one
for those that dont get what i am about:
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT NZ SHOULD HAVE GIVEN INDIA THE CHANCE TO WIN THE GAME, THEY COULD HAVE DECLARED A BIT EARLIER TO PUT THE INDIANS UNDER MORE PRESSURE, 400 IN FRONT WITH 75ISH OVERS LEFT COULD HAVE GOT THEM A 2-0 RESULT, CAPICHE??!!!
Stampy
I can definately see your point
I'm pretty sure the Michael Clarke/Darren Lehmann coach and skipper would have prob declared 400 up with 75 overs left
Good teams with attacking mindsets and a winning culture would prob go for it
Clarke almost gave England a suicide target in England in 2013[That was when Australia was England's bunnys]
Sometimes you have to prepared to lose to win
NZ have more of a a losing culture
The 1-0 win is good enough for them
The way Test cricket is set up with series contests , it can be to the detriment of cricket in my opinion
The real loser might be Test cricket
Its happened in SA when SA were over negative in a recent run chase v India
Its happened in this game as well
I know some of youse hate 20/20 cricket
But in 20/20 and 50 over cricket its result based
A draw is a result in cricket, but then again it isin't
I think you should all respect Stampys views on an earlier declaration
If the Stampy's of the world give up on Test cricket , the future is clouded